Update On "Is Anybody Down?" Investigation And Bumptious Legal Threats From Craig Brittain And Chance Trahan

You may also like...

104 Responses

  1. TheOtherMatt says:

    Might it also be an offense under ny state iaw, to pretend to be a lawyer licensed in ny's jurisdiction. If so you could try going to the ny ag's office they love these kinds of cases

  2. TJIC says:

    I note that the article at Wikipedia is a candidate for deletion.

    If you're a Wikipedia user you should feel to go there and edit the talk page, adding something like:

    * "'delete"' this is a boring page and no one cares ~~~~

    or

    * "'keep"' this is a notable even and has broad bearing on similar cases ~~~~

    Note that the four tildas at the end have the effect of signing your comment with your wikipedia user name.

  3. Note also that Chance apparently thinks editing a Wikipedia article qualifies as service of process. Or maybe he's challenging Wikipedia to a dance-off.

  4. Jack B. says:

    Or maybe he's challenging Wikipedia to a dance-off.

    It's on!

  5. Jess says:

    Wire fraud I’m assuming is the worst thing they can be charged with? It seems the following would also apply.

    C.R.S. 18—5-113 Impersonating an attorney and accepting fees in capacity of acting as that fake attorney – conduct was for their benefit at the expense of others. Class six felony in Colorado.

    18 U.S.C. § 2257 : US Code – Section 2257: Record keeping requirements. I doubt they kept records proving ALL of the people the posted were of legal age since they “copied” photos from other sites that may not have done this.

    Sanctions under Rule 11b, FRCP violations – for filing and pursuing a baseless and frivolous lawsuit if they were to try to carry thrSough with their threats against Ken, Adam, and Captain Obvious.

    Ironic that this censorius ass-hat chooses to post his bile on Veterans day of all days.

  6. SA says:

    Chance just got himself banned from Wiki editing for those legal threats:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ChanceTrahan
    You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IsAnybodyDown?.

    And the subtitle of his edit is Right Up There as candidate for "Biggest WTF?!?!? Moment" of this whole thing:
    [quote]
    Revision as of 11:26, 11 November 2012 (edit) (undo)
    ChanceTrahan (talk | contribs)
    (You Have Been Served!)[/quote]

    (link to the edit diff page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/IsAnybodyDown?&diff=522463475&oldid=521916229)

    grrrr stupid browser, trying again …

  7. Nigel Declan says:

    So when somebody knowingly sends their threat out and receives their ill-gotten money back through the series of tubes that is the interwebz, they have themselves a sackful of legal troubles.

  8. GrimGhost says:

    The stupidest thing imaginable — a person without a law license but representing himself, making a personal legal threat to a lawyer. That's like Andy Dick or Woody Allen punching Arnold Schwarzenegger in the stomach.

  9. SA says:

    @GrimGhost – Or saying this in an email to Randazza about why "David Blade" isn't found in NY's listing:

    Trust that I have a much better understanding of the laws in New York State
    than you ever will.

  10. Tali McPike says:

    "Fourth, you gravel-knuckled troglodyte, you mean disseminating, not dissipating, and that word's already in the sentence."

    Ken, I want to hug you for that sentence. That is the best insult I have heard in a very long time.

  11. Matthew Cline says:

    Third, nobody is "marketing" anything; that sounds like an attempt to fabricate a copyright claim.

    IANAL, but don't you mean a trademark or right of publicity claim?

  12. Kevin Kirkpatrick says:

    What I find most bothersome with this case, as with Marc Randazza's case where he is filing civil charges against the creepsters running "yougotposted.com", is that the charges being filed are for wire fraud and trademark infringement (repectively). Nobody is filing any charges that actually take these perpetrators to task for the act of publishing personal and sexualized photos of people without their consent. In a sense, I get it – pragmatically, it is probably more efficacious to deal with these scumbags by plucking the lowest hanging fruit. However, in the interest of setting some real precedence, it'd do my heart so much good to just see one of these asshats pinned to the wall with criminal charges of distributing sexualized photos of nonconsenting subjects. Is there any effort underfoot to do so? Or is the only recourse against such behavior waiting for the perps to get greedy and attempt to make money on the side?

  13. SPQR says:

    Kevin, can you cite any such criminal statute?

  14. Kevin Kirkpatrick says:

    Citing Marc Randazza's lawsuit:
    "Thus, the Defendants’ activities constantly violate 18 U.S.C. §
    2257 – a law that was put into place, in part, to prevent just this kind of conduct."

  15. Captain Obvious says:

    Chance has made additional threats on my YouTube posting as follows:

    if i see another something pop up, your asses are mine. I've identified you all one by one and i do have your personal info and i can and will have the authorities contact you. if you're waiting to hear from a lawyer, don't hold your breath. I have screen shots of every single thing already and you don't wanna go to war with me.
    RealMOAB 19 minutes ago

    I've no concerns for myself but hope others are being careful in how much information they provide online via YouTube.

  16. En Passant says:

    Kevin Kirkpatrick wrote Nov 11, 2012 @3:47 pm:

    However, in the interest of setting some real precedence, it'd do my heart so much good to just see one of these asshats pinned to the wall with criminal charges of distributing sexualized photos of nonconsenting subjects. Is there any effort underfoot to do so?

    Only prosecutors can bring criminal charges. Neither Ken nor Marc are (currently) prosecutors. Prosecutors hold a state or federal office by election or appointment.

    If there is an "effort underfoot", it's unlikely to be public knowledge until charges are filed, or arrests are made.

  17. Nat Gertler says:

    Might I suggest that if anyone here is in the media, writing about the situation may help disseminate word to the victims of the website that help is available. (It would also help serve to keep the Wikipedia page alive, as media coverage in significant sources is key in establishing "notability", the central criterion in deciding whether something deserves a place on Wikipedia.)

  18. AlphaCentauri says:

    The only thing that is missing from his bluster is a statement accusing you of "slander and liable." I love it when pretend lawyer trolls use that one.

  19. Tali McPike says:

    I think this sums it up perfectly

    Chance Trahan: This message comes from the internet media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2ckwld…— Satirical David(@Takedownlawyer) November 12, 2012

  20. GrimGhost says:

    @Captain Obvious, hasn't Ken said repeatedly that legal threats which are vague, not specific, are the mark of a bully who knows he has no case?

  21. Rob says:

    @Captain Obvious, hasn't Ken said repeatedly that legal threats which are vague, not specific, are the mark of a bully who knows he has no case?

    In this case, it's probably the mark of a bully who isn't smart enough to know he has no case.

  22. wgering says:

    Has anyone brought up 47 USC § 223? Seems like it would apply here, especially with the precedent set by U.S. v. Robert J. Murphy (bottom of the page).

    IANAL, so I have no idea if getting hit with eleventy-billion violations (assuming each victim is a separate violation) of 47 USC § 223 is worse than getting hit with wire fraud, but it's that much more to hit them with.

  23. Myk says:

    IANAL, and IANAUSC, but it would seem to me that the wire fraud charges would be easier to prove and involve less involvement from the victims, thereby avoiding re-traumatising them.

    While it would be SO nice to see these pond-scum idiots get nailed to the wall for their perverted behaviour (and maybe made to register as sex offenders?), the practical reality is that it is often better to use a small hammer for accuracy rather than a sledgehammer for effect.

  24. SA says:

    Five minutes after indefinitely blocking Chance's account for legal threats, the same Wiki admin extended the block time on Craig's IP address:

    16:20, 11 November 2012 Kww (talk | contribs) changed block settings for 75.70.221.14 (talk) with an expiry time of Wed, 21 Nov 2012 08:10:45 GMT (account creation blocked) (continued threats from named accounts)

    Question for the Wiki-editing folks here: Does this entry on Craig's IP talk page mean that the admin thinks the legal threats made under Chance's named account were done from Craig's IP?

  25. SA says:

    The same cut-and-paste legal threat was posted to the Ethics Alarms blog:

    http://ethicsalarms.com/2012/11/08/the-golden-rule-sets-off-an-ethics-alarm-at-popehat/

  26. GrimGhost says:

    C&C, let me give you a little piece of advice–

    "Don't drop the soap."

    Remember that advice. It'll be relevant to your life very soon.

  27. James Pollock says:

    I'm sure that there are people out there stupid enough to believe that C&C's vaguely legalistic ramblings indicate a real danger of legal action, so there might possibly be a point in waving that sort of thing around people who don't know anything at all about the law. But the ratio of bravado/stupidity to believe that you can cow a couple of lawyers with it is positively staggering.

  28. After I emailed Craig and Chance to offer to correct any inaccurate statements and/or post any response they might have, and to note that I wouldn't be cowering in silence because of baseless legal threats, Chance wrote back:

    Thanks, I can now use this as proof as well that you are in turn harassing us. Thanks for replying. I knew you would.

  29. wgering says:

    Thanks, I can now use this as proof as well that you are in turn harassing us. Thanks for replying. I knew you would.

    Asininity aside, what's up with the grammar in that sentence? It reads like something a chatbot might say, if the chatbot were a creepy sociopath that extorts women on the internet.

  30. SA says:

    > Thanks, I can now use this as proof

    He couldn't use it as proof before, but Adam's letting him use it now. Copyright of emails and all that, remember?

    > as well that you are in turn harassing us.

    "in turn" – Maybe he had been harassing Adam before, and now it was Adam's turn to be the harasser? Adam, you've been hiding juicy stuff from us!!!

    > Thanks for replying. I knew you would.

    Adam's generous in that way, letting people FINALLY get to use his emails as proof, and returning the favor of harassment.

  31. He thinks he caught me in some spiderweb of brilliant legal strategy. But (as I said in my comment reply to him), it's poor form to announce you've won the game of checkers when you're playing chess. More so when you'd still be losing were it checkers.

  32. James Pollock says:

    It's ALMOST worth starting a blog of my own, and writing my own commentary, just to see if I can horn in on C&C's torrent of lame.

  33. Nicholas Weaver says:

    As someone who buys Internet Popcorn at Costco (its located next to Randazza's supply of Murum aries attigit), I so hope Craig and Change follow through on their threats and try suing someone…

  34. tsrblke says:

    Can I just say (although mildly OT) I love that the law still uses words like "Artifice." When I had to take my "interprofessional" course work over at the law school for my non-law degree, it made the DnD nerd in me proud that several of the students had never seen the word "Aritifice" before and stared at it blankly. BUT I KNEW! (I'm the guy who always plays Artificers in my campaign.)
    Granted this wasn't exactly the cream of the crop studends either. They had no idea what a "Federal Wide Assurance" was, or the official definition of "minimal risk" from NIH's OHRP. (Which sounds like nitpicking, but it was a class on Human Subjects Research regulation.)

  35. Joe Pullen says:

    Someone left this comment on the YouTube video in response to the latest threat Chance posted referenced above at Nov 11, 2012 @4:21 pm

    @Chance – listen you little snot. You have no idea who I am because I’ve not posted my personal info to YouTube. YouTube and Google will NOT provide you my IP or anything else without a subpoena. So you can just take your lies and idle empty threats and stuff ‘em where the Sun don’t shine. I’ll post whatever I damn well please here. If you don’t like it then why don’t you quit posting and folks will stop replying to you.
    Sally Winters in reply to RealMOAB(Show the comment) 13 hours ago

    They are clearly getting frustrated that they cannot control the internet and the people who post on it with their empty threats when they have no compromising pictures to use as leverage.

  36. Jack B. says:

    I so hope Craig and Change follow through on their threats and try suing someone…

    Such a monumental task will probably require assembling a legal dream team consisting of Charles Carreon, Joseph Rakofsky, Larry Klayman, and Jack Thompson.

  37. Dan Weber says:

    I'm not a big fan of Wikipedia policy fights, but it does take a lot of stupid to blank a policy talk page and replace it with a legal threat. No wonder they came down on him in a matter of hours.

    Also, are there any extortion statutes that can be brought into play? 18 USC § 875 (d) might fit. Dunno about the state level. (Wire fraud is probably a lot easier to prove, I'll admit.)

  38. TexasAndroid says:

    Dan:
    As I said in a comment on one of the other IAD posts, No Legal Threat violations are one of the fastest ways to get oneself blocked on Wikipedia. They're also one of the easiest from which to get unblocked. Simply retracting the threat and promising not to make more is generally enough to get such a block lifted.

  39. Nate says:

    Adam, I'm now seeing this courtroom exchange in C&C's harassment suit against you:

    Chance: "Judge-dude, I have proof of Steinbaugh's harassment of myself & Craig"
    Judge: "And what form did that harassment take?"
    Chance: "An email."
    Judge: "And what was said in the email that constituted harassment?"
    Chance: "He…he… offered to correct any incorrect statements in his blog about us." *bursts into tears*
    Judge: "That utter bastard!"

    lol They should've taken advice and retained Chuck, I hear he needs the work these days (as long as it's only writing letters though because he can't leave the house for fear of those evil process servers pouncing with loaded pizza boxes), he might not be registered to practice in Colorado, but that's never really bothered him before.

  40. Connie says:

    Normally I don't judge a person based on their photographs, but the picture Marc put up of Craig backs up everything that is said of him. Best of luck with these scumbags.

    *Note – no offense is meant towards pondscum or other types of scum which may be beneficial to the environment and fed on by animal life.*

  41. Nat Gertler says:

    Question for the Wiki-editing folks here: Does this entry on Craig's IP talk page mean that the admin thinks the legal threats made under Chance's named account were done from Craig's IP?

    It doesn't need to be the same IP. The issue was raised on the Administrators' Noticeboard for Incidents that the ChanceTrahan account appeared to be raising similar concerns as the IP-addressed user, and might be a "sockpuppet" (a second account used by the same user, very much a no-no when the first account is blocked for reasons other than a problematic username) or a "meatpuppet" (an actual second user working on instruction from the first user). Kww was the administrator, and likely saw sufficient reason to believe that such puppetry was going on…. which could be the same IP at work, or could just be through evidence of similarity and timing (when a new account pops up doing the same stuff as the blocked account, it generally meets the Wikipedia standard of evidence.)

  42. SA says:

    @Nat Gertler – Thanks for the information. I appreciate you taking the time to explain that stuff.

    Another couple of question pleases, if you don't mind. If the article ends up being deleted for lack of notability, what happens to the talk and history for that article?

    If the talk and history are deleted with the article, does it get restored if the article is later restored because it's become Notable?

  43. TexasAndroid says:

    SA:
    That really, really depends. Normally, if there is nothing wrong with the history other than the notability issue, it can be restored if the notability situation changes. That's not quite the case here.

    A good part of the history has currently been revdeled. Revision Deleted. This was by the same admin that blocked the recent threatening account. He made a determination that there were no reliable sources linking the porn site to the named operators. That would be what is called a BLP (Bio of Living Person) situation. If there is not a reliable source for negative information about a living person, then that information gets treated much more stringently than other information. In the current case, the page itself is likely to be deleted for notability issues, but the linking of specific names to the site was judged to be a BLP violation that required revdel at once. So all the history that contained that information is already gone from sight.

    That all said, deletion on Wikipedia does not make things go away permanently. While it is *possible* to actually remove things from the WP database that very. very rarely happens. Normally what "deletion" does is just hide things from all but admin or higher access individuals. Admins can, with a few button pushes, restore to visibility any deleted/hidden edits. There's actually another level of deletion called "oversight" that hides edits from most admins. Oversight is really only used for the most egregious of BLP violations.

    So, assuming that the IAD site becomes notable in the future, most of the currently visible history would/could be restored. The currently revdeled edits could possibly be restored if reliable sources linked the site to the operators. Given the controversy itself generally links them, I would think it likely that any mainstream coverage that establishes notability would also establish the link to the players involved, but that's in no way guaranteed.

  44. TexasAndroid says:

    SA:
    Missed one point from you. The Talk page generally follows the fate of the associated page. Delete the page, and the Talk should be deleted as well. Restore the page if it later becomes notable? Restore the Talk as well.

  45. SA says:

    How does Wiki handle mutable sources under the control of the LP?

    For instance, Craig Brittain's LinkedIn profile clearly states the link between himself and the IsAnyBodyDown web site: It's the first listed of his current employers, and he lists himself as the CEO.

    So, while one could argue that constitutes Craig publicly asserting a significant relationship with the site, it's also a page that he could easily alter to remove all mention of IAD. It wouldn't remove the web caches and the by-now-probably-dozens of screenshots saved off to personal machines, but I'm sort of assuming those probably aren't as credible from a WP standpoint?

  46. TexasAndroid says:

    There are exceptions, but in general, for a source to be considered a Reliable Source (RS), it needs to meet 3 criteria. It should be 1) Reliable, 2) Independent, and 3) Non-trivial. Blogs are not considered Reliable, in general. That's a good part of why the blog-war itself against IAD is not enough to make IAD notable. Press releases and, yes, LinkedIn type sites are not Independent. Lists and casual mentions are considered trivial references.

    Non-independent sources can at times be considered sourcing for totally non-controversial information (birth dates, etc.), but for anything weighty, it is far, far better to find 3rd-party RS. And the BLP policy tends to prefer to err on the side of excluding information. The idea behind BLP is that, more-so than any other type of information, information about living people has the potential to cause external harm if WP gets it wrong. So WP would rather err heavily on the side of caution when it comes to almost anything about living people, and especially about anything even slightly controversial or negative. Source it well, and it can remain (if written neutrally). Don't source it to RS, and it will be removed quickly and firmly.

  47. Kevin says:
    Or maybe he's challenging Wikipedia to a dance-off.

    It's on!

    No no no… you've skipped a very important step. According to the precedent established in Marsh et al v Orange County, when somebody serves you, you have to then serve them back. Then, and only then, is it officially "on".

    sheesh… learn your common law, people!!!

  48. Nat Gertler says:

    SA: To add to the accurate info that TexasAndroid is giving you, I will note that while the existing page/talk can be restored, it's not necessarily the case that it will be restored. That really depends on the actions of whoever says "hey, this topic deserves an article again!"; they can either ask an administrator to revive the previous edition, or they can simply start from scratch. There's actually a third possibility – working from the belief that notability on this may change in the very near future, an editor can request that the page that is being deleted be "userfied" – moved into his own personal editing space on Wikipedia. There he can work at improving and maintaining the document, but it won't show up in the normal searches and won't be linked to. When the editor feels that the document is now in a state that will survive the deletion processes, he can move it back into "article space", i.e., turn it back into a normal article.

    I will also add to TA's commenting on sourcing that despite not being independent, individuals are generally considered reliable sources for facts about themselves as long as they are not self-aggrandizing. Assuming there wasn't genuine doubt about my webpage being mine, you could take from it the claim that I went to Riverton Public School and that my mother's name was Susan; it would be inappropriate to take from it statements about my milkshake vis a vis its effect upon boys in the yard. There would be some argument whether it's appropriate to take the LinkedIn page claim, and there tends to be extra delicacy concerning things that could be considered damaging to the reputation of a living person.

    And for those who aren't following the pages directly – the Wikipedia page has gotten a one-week reprieve to extend discussion about whether it should be kept.

  49. TexasAndroid says:

    Nat:
    I was a bit surprised at it being relisted. I thought that the consensus was pretty clear. But it's not my call to make. I started the debate, and that means someone else needs to end it. If they think more time is needed to come to a consensus, then the debate gets more time.

  50. Tali McPike says:

    @ Texasandroid and Nat Gerter
    RE Sources that show Craig's relation to IAD, is the WHOIS info that shows he registered the site not sufficient enough?

  51. TexasAndroid says:

    Tali:
    Let me stress that the decision to invoke BLP over the inclusion of the names is not the choice that I would have made. (Not that I *would* have made it anyway. I'm waaaay too involved with the article, as the filer of the deletion debate, to act in an admin capacity over the article.) That's not to say that I strongly disagree with the call either. To me it's not a big deal. So you have me at a disadvantage, asking me to debate a position I'm pretty much ambivalent about. TO me the names are linked to the site in a number of ways, and the inclusion/removal of the names is a side issue to the question of notability of the article itself. (Which is really just a side issue to the whole IAD situation itself.)

    What might be the best path forward, if you want to protest the revdel of the names, is to take these arguments to the talk page of the admin who made the call. Present him the LinkedIn link and the WhoIs link, and ask him if he would accept those as sufficient information to link the names to the site.

    OTOH, I suspect it's an issue that'll be totally moot in the long run. If the page is deleted for lack of notability, and stays deleted, then it's a non-issue. If RS pop up and the page is suddenly notable, I *strongly* suspect that the RS will make the link themselves, making the BLP removal of the names again moot.

  52. Bill says:

    @Kevin – that's the best comment of the thread. Weneed to get Captain Obvious to make a SouthPark Ken and Marc with Butters as co-counsel bringing it to Chance and Craig. At the end Marc can point out they got Served, and instead of teabagging them, Ken and initiate a taint sniff.

  53. Captain Obvious says:

    @Bill – unfortunately I am not that talented. It does seem they have laid off of the threats – at least for now. Actually people writing about the threats is what drove traffic to the video – which I suspect is not what they wanted. Perhaps they are beginning to understand the Streisand effect.

  54. Nat Gertler says:

    Tali: While I agree with TA that the name-removal edit is not one I'd make, I'd say that WHOIS information is a bit weak to tag someone with for this. I mean, if you were inventing an ethically- and legally-problematic site such as IAD (not that I'm suggesting you would or should), wouldn't you be tempted to put someone else's name on your domain registration? It's not a difficult thing to do. (And yes, TA, I too am surprised that debate was relisted, but that sometimes happen when someone is putting forth faulty arguments as the IP user was, even when what accompanies it is solid argument.)

  55. Kevin says:

    @Bill – I wonder if Ken would put up the popehat signal for an animator? Frivolous, yes, but totally worth it IMHO

  56. wgering says:

    @Jack B.: wasn't Jack Thompson disbarred?

  57. SPQR says:

    wgering, it wasn't over when the Germans disbarred Jack Thompson!

  58. TexasAndroid says:

    Tali:
    Nat presents a good argument for WP not accepting the WhoIs. And the LinkedIn info is likely similarly weak. Look at it from the POV of a WP admin that has not at all been following the IAD blog-war. From the POV of those of us following the whole kerfuffle, the connections between the IAD site and C&C are obvious and beyond question. But to someone on the outside of all this, concerned with BLP and getting it right, information like the LinkedIn page and the WhoIs info is falsifiable, and thus is not sufficient.

  59. SA says:

    ARS Technica article – "Involuntary porn" site tests the boundaries of legal extortion
    Site posts leaked nude photos without consent, charges $250 to take them down.

    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/11/involuntary-porn-site-tests-the-boundaries-of-legal-extortion/

  60. TexasAndroid says:

    Good spotting, SA. I've now mentioned the AT link on the ongoing deletion debate. We'll see what other people think, but that may be the first indication that the site is reaching notability.

  61. Jack B. says:

    wgering, it wasn't over when the Germans disbarred Jack Thompson!

    Chance Trahan: We gotta take these bastards. Now we could do it with conventional weapons, but that could take years and cost millions of lives. No, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part!

    Craig Brittain: We're just the guys to do it.

  62. SA says:

    Ooops, I missed this one. It's mostly a linkback to the techdirt article. Scroll down to the heading "Hypocrisy, interrupted":
    http://www.zdnet.com/australia-dumps-cleanfeed-egypt-porn-ban-twitter-backlash-egypornban-7000007141/

    I'm posting these as a general FYI, and not in an attempt to influence the Wiki-discussion.

  63. SA says:

    Posted today:

    "Involuntary porn" site charges victims to remove nude photos
    By Chase Hoffberger
    http://www.dailydot.com/news/isanybodydown-involuntary-porn-extortion-nude-pics/

  64. Look, ma, I'm Internet-famous!

  65. Matthew Cline says:

    Ahhhh, the sweet, sweet taste of the Streisand Effect. Yummy.

  66. Captain Obvious says:

    @Adam @Matthew – I suspect more articles to come. And, the YouTube video now has 605 views "surpassing even Carreon's "You're a Nut" (Cox at 644 total views). 24 upvotes – 2 down (awww Craig must have finally weighed in) and 43 comments. No more stupid threats – looks like the commenters slapped Chance down pretty good on the last round. Hoping he's learned not to do that again – obviously.

  67. Joe Pullen says:

    Techdirt ran another article on the dynamic duo and their lame threats late yesterday. Just after midnight, somebody posted the following garbled incoherent epistle.

    none haha, Nov 14th, 2012 @ 12:11am

    Boy, you sure do have them pinned. Yeah right. This is the most useless biased garbage ever written about these two on the internet to date. And you're facts are all wrong, so I guess they're not facts at all then are they? I wouldn't post screenshots if I was you, because if you were half as smart as you pretend to be, then you would see that the dirt is only being shoveled on you in return. Its ovary though because Chance and Craig are not alone in this fight and you're obviously boy winning, you just keep spreading their word for them. And Marc Randazza isn't a real lawyer, expect to hear from the authorities on that one! Anyone else wantto play because I've got ammunition for sloop of you. Keep up the god work, iad fans love this!!!!

    Oyva – Facepalm.

  68. Joe Pullen says:

    RE: the above post on TechDirt. Makes me wonder how much alcohol or other stimulants the poster had consumed before crafting that brilliant missive meant to strike fear into screenshot takers and "real" lawyers everywhere.

    The Carreon runs strong in these two.

  69. Jess says:

    Wow that is a whole sackfull of crazy. I'm curious about one thing though. All of their threats both on the Captain Obvious videos and TechDirt reference screenshots – alluding that it is somehow illegal to have taken screen shots of – what – I don't know. As far as I can tell no one is copying their actual website. IANAL but it seems that everything else was already in the public domain so. . . . . I don't get it.

  70. Jack B. says:

    @ Joe Pullen:

    Out of all the stupid contained in that comment you quoted, "Keep up the god work, iad fans love this!!!!" really stands out. Because yeah, the website's "fans" have really been banding together to defend Chance and Craig. It's gotten to the point where I can't read the comments on articles about this story, as they're nothing but an Echo Chamber of Love for Messrs. Brittain and Trahan.

    re the quote in its entirety: it reminds me of something Triumph The Insult Comic Dog said about Colin Quinn. "English as a second language is really hard when you have no first language."

  71. Tali McPike says:

    @ Joe
    I swear, individually, I understood every one of those words, but as a whole that paragraph might as well have been written in Sanskrit or Cuneiform.

  72. SA says:

    It's so over-the-top bad that I'm tempted to say it's someone else.

  73. Kevin says:

    Its ovary though because Chance and Craig are not alone in this fight

    "Its ovary though"… I'm sure there's a "series of tubes" joke in there somewhere…

  74. 2257 definitely applies here if any of the images contain "actual, sexually explicit materials" (which I'm pretty sure some of them do), since there's no way they could produce proof of age for pictures submitted by third parties. However, it's worth noting that 2257 was not designed to protect people from use of sexually explicit images of them without their consent, it's intended to fight child pornography conducted via intentionally sloppy recordkeeping. They could get around 2257 by asking their submitters to also include proof of age documentation, although that would certainly limit their submission rate.

    I'm not sure I can imagine any law that would suppress spiteful publication of embarrassing photos without also risking suppression of the publication of embarrassing photos for the common good (for example, exposing a powerful anti-gay pro-family man as a hypocrite by publishing a photo of him having sex with his secret gay lover).

  75. AlphaCentauri says:

    Does 2257 cover possession or just distribution? If you can blur the naughty bits before posting the picture, you can usually convey the gist of the story without it appealing to the prurient interest.

  76. Gal says:

    OK, the comment Joe Pullen quoted is as stupid as we've come to expect from the wonder morons, but it's also clearly peppered with autocorrect errors.

    I have to wonder at the usage history and typos that would turn "okay" into "ovary" though.

  77. Jess says:

    Part of this whole thing reminds me of Ripoff Reort and Ed Magedson. It seems he either had or still has a service that can be paid to remove bad reviews or push them to the bottom of search engines. It used to be his site was complaints against companies, now it seems to promote and allow attacks against individuals. As best as I can tell he has supposedly avoided charges by not being a content contributor or editing others content, although there is clearly a “review” process before comments are posted (manual or automated not sure). Either that or he has avoided getting in trouble by being difficult to be found, not unlike Carreon.

    If I’m understanding the law properly (and I probably don’t), it seems it hinges on whether the site owners simply allow users to post to their site or if they contribute content as well and/or if they edit other users content. It seems legally that where they can get tripped up is posting the content themselves and THEN asking to be paid to take it down. That and of course posing as a fake lawyer and getting paid for it.

  78. NPR's On the Media enters the fray — and interviews Marc Randazza — and Craig Brittain.

    It's absolutely insane. (Craig starts at about 6:00).

  79. Ken says:

    Wow! What a surprise! Yet another justification for what they do.

  80. Joe Pullen says:

    Unbelievable – he still insists these people consented and that THEY were the ones that sent the pics in. While I'm sure some of them did its' also very clear many did not.

  81. Tali McPike says:

    I will admit…the more this progresses, the more I look forward to reading the court transcripts when this actually ends up in court (for whatever charges). He is either going to find himself tangled in a web of lies, or he is going end up committing perjury and either way is going to get completely ROFLstomped.

  82. Jess says:

    Someone posted a comment on the On the Media article regarding the girls on the site labeled as "herps confirmed".

    There is a tab on the IAD site labeled as Herps confirmed – insinuating that the individuals depicted have herpes. I doubt very much that these girls both sent in their pics and also stated in that submission that they have herpes. If they don't, isn't that libel? Unfortunately if they do, I don't see how HIPAA would apply in this situation.

  83. @Jess: if the site says they have herpes and they don't, that's libel per se.

    The debate over the Wikipedia article has ended and the article survives.

    IsAnybodyDown has been updated to push their Facebook page. Sorely tempted to post there and see how long it lasts, given Craig's ambition of ensuring that nobody gets judged by the negative things people post about them on the intertubes.

  84. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Wow, Craig is a really brilliant mind here. I'd love to hear this in court when he's being roach stomped.

    And is it just me or does he sound stoned?

  85. Dan Weber says:

    And is it just me or does he sound stoned?

    I don't have much experience with that, but I thought he was disassociated. "Hey, I'm just happening to do this. My body made the website because my body didn't want to starve."

    (Maybe stoned people are disassociated anyway.)

  86. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Oh, and since Craig is still living in Moma's basement, I wonder if its the parents whos name is on the Internet bill. Randazza has a history of going after the parents of such roaches. And Craig just stated his parents know whats going on, and Craig's naughy emailing for his extortion business IS from his house…

    Ruh-roh, Raggy!

  87. SA says:

    Given Craig's lack of credibility on other questions related to this, I'm hesitant to believe his parents know and support the entire endeavor in all of its details. My $10 says they believed he's simply doing website-stuff for clients, and were totally unaware of the involuntary porn, lawyer impersonation, extortion, and other less-savory bits.

  88. Jess says:

    OMG – have you seen what Craig Brittain just posted on OTM?

    http://www.onthemedia.org/2012/nov/16/is-anybody-down/

    This guy is not playing with a full deck.

  89. SA says:

    POPCORN TIME …

    Craig responds to his critics over on the NPR / OTM interview thread …

    http://www.onthemedia.org/2012/nov/16/is-anybody-down/

    It's about what you'd expect, with the startling exception of looking like spellcheck and a brief grammar review may have been inflicted upon the statement before submission.

    He still insists what he's doing is completely legal.

    And a new angle – he's doing GOOD for the victims – check the link for yourself to see the couple of paragraphs beginning with:
    The public nature of our website actually lends to the safety factor.
    and
    Thus, the very machine that you think is exploiting them is actually protecting them.

    … and he's again stating that Randazza's being paid under the table, and adding to that with a nasty implication of working-in-bad-faith-against-clients :

    For one, he's not working pro bono. I did answer this question, but it was not aired – he has a group of backers who are paying him under the table, and they're looking for clients as fall guys to take the hit when his frivolous lawsuit (which probably won't come to fruition at this point as many people have told him his interpretation of 230 is WRONG) fails. One of these backers is James McGibney from Bullyville. Playboy/Manwin are also backing him.

  90. Jess says:

    Who knew, I have a job because I have an ego apparently. What I do know is that I have is an irresistable urge to roach stomp this loser.

  91. Joe Pullen says:

    @Jess – well apparently I also am egotistical because I have a job. I'm also apparently a sock puppet and part of something known as the Randazza/White cult. Who knew :-)

  92. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Don't forget the lovely Crazy on Facebook.

  93. Joe Pullen says:

    @Nicholas – aggghh you made me look. The reality train left that guys station a long time ago.

    On the other hand apparently Randazza is paying me to which I say "damnit man where's my check".

  94. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Hey, I want my share of the Big Porn Mafia Money too. :)

    And can I get a Ph.D. in Twinkieology, too?

  1. November 11, 2012

    [...] to remove photos he doesn't own the rights to.  Ken White, a former Federal prosecutor, believes this constitutes wire fraud.  ["David Blade" is purportedly a public defender in New York, but no lawyer by that name is [...]

  2. November 11, 2012

    [...] also posted it in the comments of Ken Popehat's Blog, Adam's Blog, and Captain Obvious's Youtube [...]

  3. November 11, 2012

    [...] leaning more towards Chance, since it is his name on the Wiki and Youtube comments) would choose to attack the free speech of his dissenters. Then when they respond, to threaten some more: if i see another [...]

  4. November 11, 2012

    [...] or something, aimirite? He better watch out before we gets David Blade III on his ass! You and your Big Porn lawyers are going down [...]

  5. November 14, 2012

    [...] Update On "Is Anybody Down?" Investigation And Bumptious Legal Threats From Craig Britta… [...]

  6. November 14, 2012

    [...] When the bumptious and sociopathic go after our blogging friend, it's Ken 1, b./s.-ers zero [Popehat] [...]

  7. December 30, 2012

    [...] attorneys, who have posted publicly about Mr. Trahan and his partner Craig Brittain.  i. http://www.popehat.com/2012/11/11/update-on-is-anybody-down-investigation-and-bumptious-legal-threat… ii. http://ethicsalarms.com/tag/chance-trahan/ [...]

  8. January 2, 2013

    [...] claiming “slander” and “invasion of privacy” in comments at a variety of sites: myself, Ken White of Popehat, Wikipedia, Techdirt, Ethics Alarm,  and this satirical video - twice.  When that [...]